Gent's, I guess if your modeling a 100 car multi level auto carrier train
the KD802/808's would be right on the money. I always have a good
chuckle when this debate shows up. As equipment wears , especially cushioned
control types, the amount of slack can be way beyond the specs of the
manufacturer. As for the longitudinal movement of the cabin car, just model
the
Penn Central or other beat up roads. You haven't lived till you went though
East Conway interlocking[and several others including Jacks on the middle
PRR middle div] at track speed. Anyway's, carry on guy's, I'm enjoying the
show.
Gary Carmichael
In a message dated 9/13/2012 12:58:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
Jim King wrote:
"His design permits Kadee centering without the annoying slack action."
Annoying?? One of my favorite memories is seeing NYC Mohawks (Mountains
for you non-NYC fans) starting a 100-car train. The loco would back up
about a car length, bunching up slack. Then it would pull forward, ever so
slowly, taking out the slack car by car. You could hear the clunk! clunk!
clunk! as each coupler became fully extended and each car leapt into slow
motion. The Mohawks' replacements, Alco FA/FB lash-ups, did the same thing.
Thankfully, this is one of the aspects of running trains on my layout that I
really enjoy -- starting a freight train and listening to the slack
take-up as the locomotive gradually moved forward.
Lest you rebut by observing that the Kadee 802/808 centering springs cause
the caboose to constantly bob longitudinally, I refer you back to my
oft-repeated (in print as well as via electrons) but little-heeded
recommendation (supported by Kadee themselves!) to substitute a knuckle spring
for the
too-stiff centering spring.
Dick Karnes
